The new Assistant Town Manager Greg Caton was introduced.

PRESENT:

Lyra Done, Chair Susannah Myerson, Vice-Chair Ali Boelts, Member Karen Chatterton, Member Greg Roberts, Member John Scheuring, Member

ALSO PRESENT:           Ainsley Legner, Parks Recreation Library & Cultural
                                Resources Director
                                Barry Gillaspie, Town Councilmember                       
                                Greg Caton, Assistant Town Manager
                                Matt Michels, Senior Planner
                                David Williams, Building Plans Examiner

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler stated that he believes that the public rejected the Naranja Town Site funding and not the Master Development Plan. He stated that new uses can not be adopted for the site if the development plan exists. There may be agreements with potential site users stating that they will end their use when the park is developed but it could become controversial because those people will have recruited members based on that location. He suggested that the board determine if the plan exists and that this item be on a future agenda.

MOTION: A motion was made by Member Boelts and seconded by Member Chatterton to approve the October 19, 2010 minutes as written.

MOTION carried, 6-0.

Chair Done announced the upcoming Town meetings and events.

No report.

Senior Planner Matt Michels presented the changes made to the code amendment since the last time he was before this board.

He reviewed the changes:
~ In-lieu fee modification (previously there were no size limits):
   - Only smaller subdivisions eligible (<43 lots / 1/2 acre)
   - Remains optional
~ Expansion of requirements:
   - Would allow for an amendment to the Fair Market Value definition
   - Currently it is for land only, expansion is for the true cost of development
~ An overview of Town parks system was reviewed, illustrating that the larger parks are public parks and the smaller parks are private parks
~ In-lieu option includes the following requirements:
   - <43 lots (1/2 acre)
   - In-lieu amount would be calculated based on true cost of development
   - Utilized within 1 mile of the site for new or to expand existing park
   - Resident access provided
   - Earmarked for a project that serves new residents
   - It would measure "apples to apples"
~ Overview of in-lieu fee refinement illustrating elements of what goes into a park and a breakdown of the cost estimate of a 1 acre park. It assumes a 1 acre parcel with roadway and utility to the site. In the current process, money is collected for the land and under the proposal it would include the full cost of development included.
~ Summary of findings:
   - This update is to respond to shortcomings in the code
   - Lack of specificity and direction to the types of facilities and the standards
   - In lieu-fee would be limited to smaller subdivisons
   - Market value definition would reflect true cost of a recreation area development
   - The standards are intended to promote welfare, safety and enjoyment.  
~ Summary:
   - It is a qualitative approach and there are no increases to area or number of amenities
   - There would be a credit for indoor amenities
   - Linear parks are specified as preferred with any standards
~ The project timeline was reviewed
~ Requested action includes:
   - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board provide a recommendation
   - Public Hearing with Planning and Zoning on December 7, 2010

Discussion followed regarding:
~ The in-lieu fees would only apply to small subdivisions.
~ The recreation area required for a subdivision in the 43 lots would be a 1/2 acre. 
~ Member Chatterton asked about recreation for older kids. Mr. Michels replied that the code has a requirement that a demographic study be done.

Chair Done opened the floor for public comment.

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler stated that he is against in-lieu fees because the recreation code was established for parks and recreational space. Space should be used to move homes further away from natural space and roadways. He recommended that the board review the history of in-lieu funds accumulated in order for to assess the fee value.

Discussion followed regarding:
~ The updated code is good because the in-lieu choice used to be for developments with under 85 units and that has been reduced to 43 units.
~ Is there evidence that residents from subdivisions which paid instead of building have a diminished quality of life?
~ In some cases it is better to give in-lieu fees such as if developments across the street from a park.
~ Are developers taking advantage and paying the fees in order to add more houses onto the land.
~ The reduction from 83 to 46 lots is good. Instead of having to dedicate a whole acre, only 1/2 acre is necessary and linear park concepts illustrate how 1/2 acre goes a long way.
~ Currently, no subdivisions are exempt.
~ With this code change, the larger lot subdivisions would not have to provide the recreation area or in-lieu fee. This issue was brought up because larger lots may not need to provide a small recreational area because the homes are already on large spaces. 
~ What does the codes determine regarding what people can do on their land?
 ~Large lot subdivisions have different needs for open space and that the facilities they seek will be in public parks. 
~ This amendment was a give back to the development community.
~ What about passive land between the homes?

Ms. Legner suggested a large subdivision have the opportunity to do a in-lieu fee if it becomes not valuable to build a recreation space in the neighborhood. 
 
Mr. Michels stated that the larger lot subdivisions do not have the extensive home owner associations and private recreation areas require an association to manage issues such as maintenance. 

Member Scheuring asked if there is a provision in the code in the case a subdivision reclassifies and subdivides. Mr. Williams responded that if the developer wants to replat, they are required to file a new subdivision plat and meet a checklist of requirements. 

Member Boelts asked if the developers that pay the fee are creating crammed subdivisions. Chair Done responded that the original planning code should protect against that. Member Chatterton pointed out that a subdivision can place the houses too close together and still meet the park requirement. 

Ms. Legner stated that the Town keeps records of how many in-lieu fees have been collected, how much has been spent and what it was spent on. Over the last 12 years, the Town has only taken about 1 in-lieu fee per year and many times it involves a small quantity of homes in one subdivision. There have also been in-lieu fees given for trails. 

Member Scheuring suggested if there is no reason that the 43 unit lots are granted the in-lieu option, that the board not adopt this provision for the 43 unit amount and abolish in-lieu fees.

Vice-Chair Myerson suggested that there be some number of houses because  a park may not be needed for a small area.

Member Roberts stated recommended against giving anyone a free pass and feels that there should be no exemptions. Mr. Williams explained that there are two issues 1) the free pass for large lot subdivisions and 2) if the small subdivisions should have the option to pay instead of build. Member Roberts stated that he has no problem with the smaller subdivisions having that option but the larger lots should not have a free pass. Vice-Chair Myerson agreed and would recommend that the code be approved striking the exemptions for the large lots.

Mr. Michels explained that the more options we can create, the more we can allow developers to do right by their buyers. Also, when you offer the park areas onsite, there is an incentive to keep it onsite because it is a selling point.

The board discussed the following:
~ In some subdivisions, they could build amenities not knowing the demographics which would be a waste of money. It would be good if the 1/2 acre was drawn out to improve the quality life.
~ Community land that is present could be set aside. 

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Myerson and seconded by Member Boelts to recommend with the modification to strike the exemption for the larger lot homes adoption of an amendment to Oro Valley Zoning code Revised Section 26.5 and Chapter 31, relating to provision of recreational area in residential subdivisions, as shown in Exhibit "A", OV710-001.

Further discussion followed regarding:
~ If the exemption were passed, it may be interpreted that the board is favoring the wealthier developers.
~ A 1/2 acre is enough space to do something with and the exemption could have been reduced to 20 units instead of 43.

MOTION carried, 5-1 with Member Scheuring opposed.

Chair Done commended Member Scheuring on his work on this project. 

Member Scheuring stated that at the last meeting, this board approved additional signage and at the next meeting he will specify more about each sign. He stated that the working group has met. 

Member Scheuring explained that the other half of the project is to have monthly nature and bird walks. These walks are the first Saturday and Sunday of each month and they run from November - April. Last month there were no attendees for the nature walks but there were six participants at the bird walk. The participants received the information from the Explorer, the online calendar and the Farmers Market. He feels that the date of the nature walk was the reason for no attendees. He feels that the James D. Kriegh Park will become a significant Tucson valley destination to view the Vermilion Flycatcher. 

Member Scheuring stated that issues with our current approach and entrance signs were discussed at the last meeting. One issue is that motorists are not made aware of upcoming parks on busy streets. The idea is to take advantage of what we are doing well and franchise it at the other parks. He and the rest of the ADHOC team met last week which included Karen Chatterton, Ainsley Legner and Multimodal Planner Nancy Ellis and they determined the priorities.

Ms. Legner reviewed the priorities in order:
1) The approach signs due to safety. The cost is approximately $500 and staff can work with Development & Infrastructure Services Department.
2) Interpretive signage inside the parks which would include "the nature of" signs.
3) Replacing the sign at Naranja Town Site with an updated sign. It currently illustrates the old program and concept design master plan. The names of the donors and the Ventana connection will still be present in the new sign.

Member Scheuring stated there is now an Oro Valley Parks and Recreation table at the Farmers Market on the last Saturday of each month and he plans to continue this with a staff member. There are many residents who do not know where the parks are and the Town maps are not clear. He has met with a staff member from the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Department and discussed modifying the Town map. 

Member Scheuring showed a Town of Oro Valley map on the Town’s website and it shows dark areas which represent private parks and the outlined areas represent public parks but they are not listed on the legend so the GIS person will add it to the legend and it will then be made available at Farmers Market.

Discussion followed regarding:
~ There was one Rancho Vistoso park on the map but the others were not shown. Ms. Legner stated that she will look into this. 
~ The font of the park names is bigger than the outlined park in many cases and asked if the font could be made larger. Ms. Legner made note of this suggestion.
~ Ms. Legner expressed her appreciation to Member Scheuring for starting the table at the Farmers Market.

Member Chatterton stated that at the last meeting, the board discussed alternative ways to inform the police about issues in the park. Last week she met with Police Chief Daniel Sharp, Ms. Legner, Lyra Done and John Scheuring. She was informed that "dogs at large" is an issue that has never been prosecuted so the next step is to speak with the Town Attorney to see what can be done so that it can be enforced.

The texting issue is not something that will be pursued now because some do not want it, it could be a monitoring issue and the parks are not very dangerous. 

Ms. Legner stated that Assistant Recreation Manager Robert Carmona is the point person for the archery and disc golf items and we are continuing to meet with those groups to discuss some of the nuances of those projects. Staff will meet again with the Sonoran Desert Flyers regarding the shared space.

Vice-Chair Myerson added that her brother in law plays disc golf every Sunday at Himmel Park and carpools with several others. He knows half a dozen people in Oro Valley who would play disc golf nearby if they could.

This item was discussed concurrently with Item 9.

a.	CHAIR DONE - FINANCE AND BOND COMMITTEE

This committee has not met and she hopes that this committee is kept.

b.	ALI BOELTS - TOWN COUNCIL

The regular meeting on November 3, 2010 and the study session on November 10, 2010 were both cancelled.

c.	SUSANNAH MYERSON - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

No report.

d.	GREG ROBERTS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Member Scheuring reported that at the last Historic Preservation Commission meeting, there was a proposal to have the Honey Bee Village archeological site monitored by the state which was strongly endorsed by the commission and Councilmember Solomon. 

Member Scheuring stated that there was a major vandalism two weeks ago at Arroyo Grande on state trust land and a large bedrock border was removed. Councilmember Solomon and some of the Historic Preservation Commission members will visit the site on November 18, 2010.

e.	KAREN CHATTERTON - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

No report.

No report.

~ Staff made two attempts to contact Linda Mayro from Pima County regarding the Honey Bee Village monitoring idea but have not received a response yet.
~ In the Steam Pump Ranch 1870’s ranch house, stairs were found during removal of the kitchen floor. The stairs lead to the basement and the onsite archeologist has indicated that this is may be the oldest basement in Arizona. There will be a project team meeting soon to discuss how to proceed.
~ Reminder to wear Oro Valley shirts for the photo shoot on December 15th.
~ The board was encouraged to attend the Volunteer Appreciation Reception.
~ The board was invited to participate in the Oro Valley Parade. The Library, Aquatics and Parks divisions will participate.
~ The board is welcome to volunteer at the Tree Lighting Ceremony.
~ This is the last meeting for Lyra Done and Ms. Legner expressed her deepest gratitude for her ongoing support.

Chair Done stated that she enjoyed her time spent on this board. She recognized Bill Adler as the first recipient of the Volunteer of the Year Award in 2007.

~ The voter’s intent regarding the Naranja Town Site plan
~ Skate park

No discussion.

MOTION: A motion was made by Member Scheuring and seconded by Member Chatterton to adjourn at 7:52 p.m.

MOTION carried, 6-0.

Prepared by:


Danielle Tanner
Senior Office Specialist